Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 3

Meta content
'Things to do', 'Project collaboration' and 'WikiProject' sections are often added to portals, but this contradicts Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Generally, we should avoid mixing the content we present to our readers and meta content such as WikiProjects: causal readers should never be exposed to the internal workings of Wikipedia. What is WikiProject Portals thought on this? Please add your thoughts here. jonkerz ♠talk 17:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Portals are an introduction to the topic on Wikipedia, and therefore any related project work is relevant. Additionally, that guideline applies only to mainspace, not anywhere else: "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided." (emphasis added) Portals are a different namespace. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid. jonkerz ♠talk 12:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied there too! Max51 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comments by . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have portals link to an associated project, but not have panels/content that is essentially project based, like requested articles, or alerts, etc. a reader should have a chance to dive in to editing at a portal, but it should only be to that portal itself (like suggesting or adding new articles/images), or link them over to a project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mercurywoodrose; it's OK for a portal to have an "advert" linking to the corresponding wikiproject, but the portal shouldn't duplicate wikiproject info as that blurs the distinction between portals and projects and risks making portals messy (with out of date information, redlinks etc). See, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Portal. DexDor(talk) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Organized Labour
The Portal:Organized Labour portal is transcluding its featured articles of the day rather than giving a short synopsis. Aside from how awful this looks, it is (impermissibly) creating uses of fair use images in portal space. --B (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsible portal templates?
I have been maintaining Portal:Illinois for about a year, mainly keeping things up-to-date and adding to the selected articles, without really touching the overall look of the portal. One change I would like to make: the portal has two giant sections at the bottom, "List of Topics," and "Things You Can Do," that IMO take up too much space with walls of text. Is there a way to make these collapsible? It would improve the overall look of the portal, I think. Fishal (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Inline CSS in portal boxes
Hi, I noticed that the portal boxes all use inline CSS instead of relying on classes and external style sheets. I'm new to portals so I'm not sure if this is a limitation of Wikipedia or not, but wouldn't it be better to use classes for styling the portal boxes?

As it is (with inline css), some portals are unreadable for people using custom CSS on wikipedia. Some boxes are places within divs of class "portal-column-left" or "portal-column-right" (for positioning only), which could be used to override the default style. However other larger boxes do not seem to be placed under anything that could be used to select them and skin them properly. Guillaume.web (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Sufism
The Portal:Sufism portal is not on the list--Shahab (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm..not one many are not listed. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 09:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical
I've marked this page as historical, discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)